Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 32045
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Dharmesh Sharma, J
PROMILA RASTOGI & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
D.D.A. & THR. ITS CHAIRMAN – Respondent
W.P.(C)-241/2001
The court held the Delhi Development Authority liable for negligence in construction and maintenance, applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and awarded compensation to the petitioners for loss of dependency and expenses.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ petition for compensation due to negligence in construction leading to fatal accident - Petitioners sought compensation for loss of dependency and medical expenses due to the collapse of a balcony - The court held the Delhi Development Authority liable for negligence in construction and failure to maintain the property. (Paras 1, 31, 34)
(B) Negligence - The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies where the cause of an accident is under the control of the defendant, and negligence can be inferred from the accident itself - The DDA was found liable for the balcony collapse due to latent structural defects. (Paras 23, 28)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought compensation following the death of Shri Suresh Rastogi due to a balcony collapse in their apartment, which was constructed by the DDA. The petitioners alleged negligence in construction and maintenance by the DDA. (Paras 2-6)
Findings of Court:
The DDA was held liable for the balcony collapse due to negligence and failure to maintain the property, leading to a writ of mandamus for compensation. (Paras 30, 34)
Issues: The main issues addressed were the DDA's responsibility for the construction quality and maintenance of the flats, and the calculation of compensation for the petitioners. (Paras 10, 31)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the DDA's negligence was the direct cause of the balcony collapse, applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur to establish liability. (Paras 28, 34)
Result: A writ of mandamus was issued directing the DDA to pay compensation of Rs. 11,44,908/- with interest. (Para 34)
J U D G M E N T
1. The petitioner is invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court by instituting the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking the following reliefs: “(a) to issue writ of mandamus/direction to institute comprehensive enquiry by appropriate agency preferably by C.B.I, for fixation of responsibility on those officials and contractors involved in the construction of multistoried complex of 816 flats at Jhilmil Colony, Phase - II in the year 1986-88.
(bi) the respondent to pay sum of Rs. 12,10,000/- to the petitioners as a compensation on account of loss of dependency, reimbursement of medical expenses, repair of balcony, loss of love & affection, mental agony and harassment suffered due to sudden demise of Shri Suresh Rustagi on 20.07.2000, as a result of collapse of balcony, of the flat no. 121-C, IInd Floor, Pocket A-1, Jhilmil, Phase-II, Delhi - 110095.
(c) the respondent to give appropriate employment to one amongst the petitioners on compensation ground.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P. (C) No. 241/2001 Page 1 of 16 (d) Cost of the Writ Petition throughout be awarded to the petitioners.
(e) any other or further relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstance in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent in order to meet the ends of justice.”
BRIEF FACTS:
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner No. 1 is the mother of petitioners No. 2 and 3, and wife of late Shri Suresh Rastogi, who passed away due to the sudden collapse of their apartment‟s balcony on 20.07.2000. Petitioners No. 2 and 3, being minor sons, are represented by petitioner No. 1 as their natural guardian.
3. The respondent/Delhi Development Authority1 constructed 816 flats in Jhilmil Colony, Phase-II, for low and medium-income groups, with construction in the year 1983 and completed in 1987. The flats, each consisting of two living rooms and a bathroom, were priced at Rs. 86,700/- in the year 1985-86.
4. One such flat was allotted by the DDA to the registered applicants, namely Shri G.P. Bajaj son of Shri M.R. Bajaj vide allotment letter dated 17.11.1988. The petitioner claims that the applicants were coerced into signing the terms under threat from the DDA. Anyhow, the DDA in due course of time handed over the possession of Flat No. 121-C, located on the second floor, in Pocket A-1, under the Jhilmil Colony, Phase-II scheme, to Shri G.P Bajaj.
5. Upon taking possession, Shri Bajaj and other allottees found the flats to be of substandard quality. In response, they formed the Jhilmil
1 DDA Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P. (C) No. 241/2001 Page 2 of 16 DDA Flat Resident Association2 (registered in 1989) to address these concerns. On. 28.12.1993, the Association passed a resolution to address the construction quality issues, including problems with the boundary wall, and submitted a representation dated 01.02.1994 to the DDA. In response, the DDA, vide letter dated 01.06.1994, denied its responsibility for substandard construction without providing a valid reason. The Association then filed Complaint No. 145 of 1994 on 06.06.1994 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, highlighting the deteriorating condition of the said flats. The petitioners allege negligence by the DDA for failing to address the deterioration of the building's structure, including plaster peeling within 5-6 years, when it should last 40-50 years.
6. On the fateful day i.e., 20.07.2000, the balcony of the petitioner‟s second-floor apartment collapsed, causing the petitioner‟s husband to fall and suffer multiple injuries. Despite receiving the medical aid and timely treatment, the petitioner‟s husband succumbed to his injuries on 24.07.2000. At the time of his death, he was employed with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi3 as a „mate‟ in the Bridge Division-I, earning ₹6,192/- per month. The petitioner No. 1 asserts that her husband would have work
